Culture Arts Tourism Hospitality & Sport Sector Education and Training Authority (CATHSSETA) on its role in the sector

Arts and Culture

08 September 2015
Chairperson: Ms X Tom (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

CATHSSETA highlighted three main challenges faced by the entity: a significant number of (training) providers in the sector were urban based compared to rural areas where the greater needs were; depletion of funding resources for the sector across the board; and sector fragmentation. The Committee was not happy with the level of transformation that the entity was promoting. Rural provinces such as Limpopo, Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape were receiving very little resources and training yet they were the areas in most need. The Committee said the Department of Arts and Culture (DAC or the Department) needed to support and strengthen their entities, and pay very close attention to them.

The Department of Arts and Culture briefed the Committee on the current status of the White Paper on Arts and Culture. Once a broad statement of policy was finalised by the Department, the first revised draft of the White Paper would be drafted between November and December 2015, and submitted to Cabinet as a Green Paper. Once approved by Cabinet, the document would be published in the Government Gazette for public comment. The final draft would be referred to Parliament for further consultation. It was anticipated that this final draft would be submitted to Parliament in the first quarter of 2016.

The Committee was not happy with the Department’s unresponsiveness to artists with the process of the White Paper. The Chairperson asked that the Department brief artists the same way that the Committee would be briefed on the matter so they also knew where the process was.

The Department provided an update on the agreement between the Department and the South African Roadies Association (SARA). A detailed plan and timeline was presented. The Committee was not happy with the plan; it felt that there was no progress and many things in the plan should have been done already. Members felt that the plan and timeline was unrealistic and unfair; they were concerned that SARA would end up giving up because of the amount red tape and bureaucracy involved in the process. The Committee suggested that SARA’s side of the story be obtained.

The Committee discussed the Kader Asmal report. The Chairperson would be attending a meeting on Friday where the report would be discussed. The Committee were in agreement that PanSALB was a liability and problematic, and needed to be dissolved.

Meeting report

The Chairperson explained to the delegation that the Committee would be asking questions for understanding and clarity, the delegation should not take anything said personally because it was not about them but about the people they served and represented. She was disappointed at the lack of gender representation in the delegation. The Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and the Portfolio Committee on Tourism were invited, and some members of those Portfolio Committees were present.

Culture Arts Tourism Hospitality and Sport Sector Education and Training Authority

Mr Pumzile Kedama, Administrator, CATHSETTA, thanked the Chairperson and assured her that the organisation was committed to gender representation at the executive level. The entity was at a stage where it was trying to stabilise the organization, especially after receiving an unqualified audit from the Auditor-General.

Mr Muzi Mwandla, Executive Manager: Strategic Planning, Research Management, Strategic Management,  CATHSSETA, briefed the Committee on the status of the entity and its activities.

CATHSSETA was established in terms of the Skills Development Act of 1998. The Executive Authority was the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) and it reported to the DHET.  Average levy income was approximately R260 million per annum. Like all Seta's, its primary purpose was to contribute to the South African Economy through facilitation of skills development in the relevant Sub-Sectors.

CATHSSETA’s main function was to research and establish a nationally recognised Sector Skills Plan and support this SSP through implementation of skills development programmes serving the interest of the following sub-sectors within our economy and society:

  • Arts, Culture and Heritage;
  • Conservation;
  • Gaming and Lotteries;
  • Hospitality;
  • Sport, Recreation and Fitness; and
  • Tourism and Travel Services

With regard to the geographical spread of CATHSSETA’s registered entities, most were in Gauteng (10640), the Western Cape (7209) and Kwa-Zulu Natal (3717). The least were in the Northern Cape (266).

CATHSSETA received R269 929 000 in levies in the 2014/15 financial year.

Of the 1123 Arts, Culture & Heritage registered entities with CATHSSETA, there were currently 2292 reported employees compared to the 2013/14 figures that indicated 838 registered entities with 1975 employees.

The following learning programmes and interventions were funded by CATHSSETA through Discretionary Grants’ funding window:

  • Learnerships
  • Artisans
  • Bursaries
  • Skills Programmes
  • WIL/Internships

Budget spent on these programmes for the 2014/15 financial year was R8 853 000, the 2015/2016 financial year saw a huge decrease in this area, the total budget for this financial year was R4 836 000.

Most resources were spent on urban provinces such as Gauteng and the Western Cape; rural provinces such as Limpopo, Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape received very little attention and resources.

The Arts, Culture and Heritage sub-sector faced three main challenges:

  1. A significant number of (training) providers in the sector were urban based compared to rural areas where the greater needs were
  2. Depletion of funding resources for the sector across the board
  3. Sector fragmentation


The Chairperson applauded CATHSSETA on acting on the Auditor-General’s audit and obtaining an unqualified audit. Government’s goal was achieve clean audits for all government departments.

A member of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training was concerned about the huge difference between the number of bursaries offered for the 2014/2015 financial year, and the 2015/2016 financial year. She asked CATHSSETA to explain why there was a decline. She asked why there was a disparity in training offered between urban and rural areas. Most training was taking place in urban areas, whereas the demand was in the rural areas.

Mr T Makondo (ANC) noted an inconsistency in the information provided in the presentation; one area of the presentation stated that there was no information on Mpumalanga, North West and Limpopo with regard to bursaries. Another section stated that there was one learner in the North West, and in each province, that received bursaries. He doubted whether the information was checked before the presentation. He asked why the information was inconsistent and why the Committee should believe them.

Poor provinces continued to receive poor or little attention and services. Why was training and funding concentrated in Gauteng and the Western Cape, and why CATHSSETA was not concentrating on the poorer provinces.

Mr Kedama explained that training and funding was concentrated in urban provinces because most of those areas had structures to conduct the training and also provided financial opportunities, which was what led to urbanisation.

CATHSSETA was recently in the Eastern Cape, which was where they realised and acknowledged the fact that they had done very little to engage with the rural provinces in order to tackle their issues, and decided to address this issue of disparity. They were currently working on a strategy to address what could be done for skills development.

Mr Mwandla explained that training largely took place in urban areas because it is mainly supported by workplaces. However, he acknowledged that this was no an excuse to not bring training and development to rural areas.

Mr Makondo noted that there were no bursaries in three provinces, namely Limpopo, Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape. What mechanisms were used to determine who received bursaries, and why were these three provinces excluded?

Mr Xulu explained that their bursaries and learnerships were administered through institutions; beneficiaries were learners who were already part of the CATHSSETA system. The institutions identified students who they felt should apply for bursaries and learnerships. CATHSSETA also worked through the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS), which was used to administer funds to students.

Mr Mwandla added that bursaries were not administered in those provinces because they may not have universities. The problem was that the reporting process did not track the origin of the learner who received funding; as a result the information was skewed. A student from Limpopo may have received funding but be studying in the Western Cape.

Mr Makondo was concerned about the qualifications of the leadership of CATHSSETA. This SETA continued to perform poorly with regard to financial management. Information was received from the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training about the misuse of public funds by the board and senior members of CATHSSETA. He asked whether there were consequences for the misappropriation of public funds, and if so, what they were.

Mr G Grootboom (DA) asked whether CATHSSETA had an approved language policy.

Mr Mwandla responded that CATHSSETA did not have an approved language policy.

Mr Grootboom asked where students applied for bursaries, and whether there were advertisements about these opportunities, because he had never come across any.

Mr Xulu acknowledged that communication was poor and non-existent that the entity was in a process of finalising a communication strategy.

Mr Mwandla said CATHSSETA had road shows. Two had taken place this year; the second was focused on rural areas. Learners were assisted in filling out applications.

A Member asked about CATHSSETA’s source of funding, whether it only came from the DAC or if it were both DAC and the Skills Development Fund found in each province, or if there were other sources of funding.

A Member asked what drama therapy was about.

Mr Mwandla explained that drama therapy was used as a therapeutic healing process, where pain was expressed in the form of dramatic art through poetry, dance or acting.

Ms A Matshobeni (EFF) asked what CATHSSETA’s impact was in rural areas and who their beneficiaries were in rural areas.

Ms B Ngcobo (ANC), Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Tourism, reiterated what the Chairperson had said about transformation in terms of gender representation and little funding and training being concentrated in rural areas. Transformation was very minimal, especially in service delivery, she urged the SETA to work harder. Rural provinces were isolated and excluded from most of CATHSSETA’s plans. She asked how the SETA planned on incorporating them and making them accessible to the people. Was CATHSSETA was popularising itself?

The Chairperson asked if there was a communication strategy in place to get information out there to the public.

Mr Mwandla said that they were in the process of finalising one.

Mr Xulu thanked the Committee for its questions and comments. CATHSSETA did not intend to mislead the Committee. The picture was not as bleak as it looked.

Mr Grootboom was a psychologist by profession and said he felt like CATHSSETA were showing signs of a person suffering from alcoholism, they knew they had problems and stated that they were working on it, and stated that without a concrete plan in mind. He asked how CATHSSETA planned on addressing the problem of rural areas, and why CATHSSETA did not have a language policy. He asked that they follow up on the consequences for the misappropriation of public funds. CATHSSETA was beating around the bush and very superfluous in their answers, there was nothing concrete.

Mr Xulu explained that there were consequences for the misappropriation of funds. The current case led to the board being dissolved, with disciplinary actions against board members, resignations and dismissals, and a board member was arrested the previous Friday.

The Chairperson said Mr Xulu could not answer that question; the question should be directed to Higher Education and Training because they were directly involved in the matter and therefore better informed.

A Member of the Committee on Higher Education and Training said she did not have the answer; the Portfolio Committee was still following up on the matter. She sought clarity on Mr Mwandla’s statement about there being no universities in Limpopo, Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape. There were universities in those provinces.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee wanted something tangible and measurable that the Committee could hold CATHSSETA to, simply stating that you are working on it or you plan to do something was not enough. The Committee wanted a plan of action with deadlines.

Ms Ngcobo was confused as to how CATHSSETA did not have specific figures for the number of learners who benefited from funding opportunities offered by the SETA. CATHSSETA could request the information from Departments. She asked why CATHSSETA did not have extension officers to deal with some provinces in order to combat the disparity between rural and urban areas.

Mr Xulu explained that they did not have provincial officers. CATHSSETA had a target of establishing five provincial offices; these offices would be established closer to stakeholders and address the problem of accessibility. One of the reasons why they were in the Eastern Cape, was that they were examining the feasibility of establishing an office there. CATHSSETA was also looking at establishing an office in each educational institution in order to be more accessible.

The Chairperson asked how CATHSSETA operated within provinces. Departments needed to stop working in silos and start working together in order to achieve results and success; she used the example of the Departments of Tourism, Higher Education and Training, and Arts and Culture working together.

Ms Newton acknowledged that SETAs needed attention. The Department did not work very closely with SETAs and the Department was looking into improving these relationships. The Department had had some successful partnerships with development agencies. CATHSSETA played a small role in administering the activities of the Department; other SETAs also played a role.

The new universities did not provide arts and culture studies so it was very difficult for the Department to get involved with them. This however, did not take away from students’ opportunities to travel to other areas to be involved with projects offered. The Department provided funding for such opportunities.

The Chairperson thanked the CATHSSETA. She encouraged them to allow the Committee to support and assist them.

Matters Arising

Resubmission of PACOFS presentation

Ms Newton explained that PACOFS plan would probably change as they progressed.

PanSALB Annual Report

Ms Newton apologised for the difference between the hard copy and soft copy due to last minute changes. The presentation was updated with the recommendations. The initial deadline was 30 September but the deadline would not be met, PanSALB asked the Minister for an extension with regard to their Annual Performance Report.

The Chairperson said that it was unacceptable to change or send through a presentation last minute because the Committee needed time to comprehend the document before the meeting.

These presentations would be discussed in the next meeting. The Department needed to monitor these two entities closely. She asked how far the Department had gone to strengthen these entities. 80% of the Department’s budget went towards entities.

Ms Monica explained that the Department had noted the governance unit as needing attention. There were a number of vacancies in that unit that needed filling and assured the Committee that these were being attended to urgently. Currently executive members were in charge of nine entities each and this has proved to be difficult to manage. With the filling of posts the number would be decreased to five entities each, the Department hoped this would prove to be more manageable. Some duties of that portfolio were being moved to a different portfolio so that should also lighten the load. She was hopeful that this would help to administer and manage entities better.

The Chairperson asked when as soon as possible was, and reiterated the point of things being tangible and measurable for accountability reasons.

Ms V Mogotsi (ANC) asked for a detailed report on all the entities under the management of the Department and who was in charge of them.

Ms Newton said that the Department would be able to submit a detailed report to the Committee.

The Chairperson said that the report must be submitted by Thursday, 10 September 2015.

The Chairperson asked the Department to improve their information next time. She could not see the picture that the Department was illustrating with regard to the number of students getting bursaries; the information was not very specific.

A member of the Department explained that it was difficult to determine and measure because it was dependent on the applications received.

The Chairperson said that the Department needed to look at the heritage landscape of a province and determine the number of heritage leaders/ambassadors needed. The Department’s planning needed to be informed. The Department should try focusing on enticing youth from primary level so that they were accustomed to this.

Department of Arts and Culture on the Skills Development Plan and update on the plan

Ms Newton presented the Skills Development plan and update.

The following regulatory frameworks guided human Resource Development (HRD) in the DAC:

  • Public Service Act & Regulations.
  • Skills Development Act and Skills Development Levies Act.
  • Departmental Human Resource Development Policy.

The HRD Target as per the Annual Performance Plan for 2014/2015 was 500 training interventions; this target was exceeded by 27 (527). The Total amount spent on training and development in the 2014/2015 financial year was R2 543,000. R1 844,000 went towards training, and R699,000 went towards bursaries.

The 2015/2016 training and development budget was R .219million (centralised), representing 1% of the employee compensation budget. The 2015/2016 Bursary budget (employees) was R700 000. The total budget for workplace human resource development was R2.919million.

The Annual Workplace Skills Plan (WSP) for 2015/2016 was compiled and submitted to the PSETA in May 2015; strategic training priorities were identified through the individual training needs of employees, and personal Development Plans (linked to the PMDS) of employees inform the training needs. The Annual Internship Programme for 2015/2016 was implemented in June 2015 (12 months): 30 Graduates - and 2 Student Interns. An audit was conducted within the DAC on potential ABET learners: there were no qualifying candidates.

The priority skills identified for 2015/2016 were graphic designer/calligrapher and language practitioner.

Update by the Department of Arts and Culture on the status of the White Paper on Arts, Culture and Heritage

The Chairperson informed the Department that she had received a phone call from an artist asking what was happening. They were told that the process would be started afresh, but since the workshop they had attended, they had not received any feedback and the Department was not responsive to their inquiries. This was not acceptable and was not fair on the people they served. The people involved should also get the same brief as the Committee would receive.

Ms Newton explained that the Department was struggling with the White Paper process and feedback; she assured the Chairperson that the Department would send out documents to the people involved and have a workshop with them.

Ms Newton briefed the Committee on the White Paper process to date.

The Acting Director-General (ADG) appointed a project team, in February 2015, headed by himself, to prepare a project plan and implementation timeline for the process. In mid-February, the team commenced work on the first phase of the project plan.

A Concept Document, submitted to, and approved by the ADG on 15 March 2015, consisted of a literature and internal policy review of the ACH sector and creative economy, the development of a methodology, and the design of a workshop programme and public consultation schedule.

In late March 2015 the DAC issued a public invitation to stakeholders and arts practitioners interested in participating in a review of the policies and work of the department, and the development of a related policy framework based on the research findings, current research and inputs of experts.

Following an initial round of public consultations in four provinces during the months of March and April 2015, it was decided to extend the process to the last quarter of 2015 in order to accommodate a more representative sample of participants in all nine provinces.

An interim report, based on the preliminary findings of the consultations, was submitted to the Minister of Arts and Culture in July 2015. The report consisted of an analysis of the review results from four provinces, and an interpretation of common (cross-cutting) weaknesses, successes and lessons of the ACH sector as a whole, geared to their transferability to best practice models.

Several factors were considered in the design of an approach to the White Paper process. Firstly, given criticism of weak consultation during the 2013 Revised White Paper process, the research sample needed to be representative. Secondly, the scope of the information collected had to be wide enough for interpretation and further analysis. Thirdly, given the vastness of the project area, the data collection exercise was also to be cost-effective. In that regard, a staged approach was employed, where an initial document analysis provided the first dataset on the White Paper, and that data was used to inform the primary aspect of the exercise. The approach took the form of five interlocking stages:

- A review of policy documents and programme data;
- Development of a research approach and methodology for the study;
- Based on the initial information base, the design of a workshop format and schedule;
- An interpretation of the findings and discourse analysis; and
- A set of recommendations.

An analysis of the findings to make a preliminary assessment of actual progress towards the wider objectives of the Revised White Paper was conducted and submitted in an interim report to the Minister of Arts and Culture under the following thematic areas:

- Professional development of artists,
-  Economic inclusion, social cohesion and nation building,
-  Sustainable development, and
- Weaknesses and challenges of the intervention and possible future intervention.

Further consultations would be conducted in the following remaining provinces during the months of October and November 2015: Northern Cape, Mpumalanga, North-West Province, Northern Province, and Limpopo.

Once a broad statement of policy was finalised by the Department, the first revised draft of the White Paper will be drafted up between November and December 2015, and submitted to the Cabinet as a Green Paper. Once approved by Cabinet, the document would be published in the Government Gazette for public comment. The final draft would be referred to Parliament for further consultation. It was anticipated that this final draft would be submitted to Parliament in the first quarter of 2016.

Update on the settlement of agreement between Department of Arts and Culture and the South African Roadies Association

A meeting was held on 14 August 2015 with the Deputy Public Protector, wherein it was agreed that an implementation plan, outlining concrete actions to be taken to implement the outstanding items of the settlement agreement which were the renovation of SARA House and the facilitation of funding for the renovation project and other initiatives implemented by SARA, would be drafted. The formal minutes of this meeting from the Office of the Deputy Public Protector were awaited.

It was important to note that the Deputy Public Protector indicated that an intermediary should be appointed to facilitate the renovation project rather than creating a direct transfer relationship between the DAC and SARA. This necessitated discussions with agencies such as the Independent Development Trust (IDT), and further would require a more complex contracting arrangement with regard to the DAC funds that had been allocated.

SARA submitted the documentation as requested (see attached document) however some details were required as documented in the report. The following information was requested from SARA: a detailed narrative on the renovations plan, a detailed budget breakdown, a narrative plan outlining that SARA will fundraise the additional R4 million and how.  The Department had outlined a detailed time frame for this process.

The Chairperson felt there was no progress and no moving forward with this process. Many of the things that were outlined in the document should have been done earlier. The Committee needed to obtain SARA’s side of the story; the impression was that SARA’s account of things would be different to what the Department was saying.

Mr Grootboom had the impression that SARA would end up giving up because of all the red tape and bureaucracy involved in the process.

The Committee was not happy with how things were currently unfolding in this process.

Ms Mogotsi felt that the timeline and plan was unfair and unrealistic, especially since the Department itself would never be able to follow and complete such a timeline and plan.

Adoption of minutes
The Committee decided that consideration of the outstanding minutes would be dealt with in the next meeting.

Government entities
The Committee discussed the Kader Asmal Report. The Chairperson asked the Department for their input. Ms Newton stated that it was critical to define the status of PanSALB.

The Chairperson explained that there was a need to dissolve PanSALB and match it with CLR. She questioned whether things would be better if that was done. A meeting was scheduled for Friday to discuss the report and come up with suggestions.

Ms Tsoleli said PanSALB was a liability to the state and felt that before PanSALB was merged with another entity, there was a need to rectify the problems in PanSALB in order to avoid problems of leadership and governance.

Mr Grootboom said according to a report he had read, dissolving PanSALB would save the government about R38 million.
The Chairperson thanked the Committee for its hard work and dedication, and the Department for its work.

The meeting was adjourned.

Share this page: